Kolender v. Lawson, No. 81-1320

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtO'CONNOR
Citation75 L.Ed.2d 903,461 U.S. 352,103 S.Ct. 1855
Decision Date02 May 1983
Docket NumberNo. 81-1320
PartiesWilliam KOLENDER, et al., Petitioner, v. Edward LAWSON

461 U.S. 352
103 S.Ct. 1855
75 L.Ed.2d 903
William KOLENDER, et al., Petitioner,

v.

Edward LAWSON.

No. 81-1320.
Argued Nov. 8, 1982.
Decided May 2, 1983.
Syllabus

A California statute requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer. The California Court of Appeal has construed the statute to require a person to provide such identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889. The California court has defined "credible and reliable" identification as "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." Appellee, who had been arrested and convicted under the statute, brought an action in Federal District Court challenging the statute's constitutionality. The District Court held the statute unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The statute, as drafted and as construed by the state court, is unconstitutionally vague on its face within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. Pp. 355-361.

658 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1981), affirmed and remanded.

A. Wells Petersen, San Diego, Cal., for appellants.

Page 353

Mark D. Rosenbaum, Los Angeles, Cal., as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below by special leave of Court.

Justice O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.

This appeal presents a facial challenge to a criminal statute that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a "credible and reliable" identification and to account for their presence when requested by a peace officer under circumstances that would justify a stop under the standards of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).1 We conclude that the statute as it has been construed is unconstitutionally vague within the meaning of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by failing to clarify what is contemplated

Page 354

by the requirement that a suspect provide a "credible and reliable" identification. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court below.

I

Appellee Edward Lawson was detained or arrested on approximately 15 occasions between March 1975 and January 1977 pursuant to Cal.Penal Code § 647(e).2 Lawson was prosecuted only twice, and was convicted once. The second charge was dismissed.

Lawson then brought a civil action in the District Court for the Southern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that § 647(e) is unconstitutional, a mandatory injunction seeking to restrain enforcement of the statute, and compensatory and punitive damages against the various officers who detained him. The District Court found that § 647(e) was overbroad because "a person who is stopped on less than probable cause cannot be punished for failing to identify himself." Juris. Statement, at A-78. The District Court enjoined enforcement of the statute, but held that Lawson could not recover damages because the officers involved acted in the good faith belief that each detention or arrest was lawful.

Appellant H.A. Porazzo, Deputy Chief Commander of the California Highway Patrol, appealed the District Court decision to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Lawson

Page 355

cross-appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of damages against the officers. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court determination as to the unconstitutionality of § 647(e). The appellate court determined that the statute was unconstitutional in that it violates the Fourth Amendment's proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures, it contains a vague enforcement standard that is susceptible to arbitrary enforcement, and it fails to give fair and adequate notice of the type of conduct prohibited. Finally, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court as to its holding that Lawson was not entitled to a jury trial to determine the good faith of the officers in his damages action against them, and remanded the case to the District Court for trial.

The officers appealed to this Court from that portion of the judgment of the Court of Appeals which declared § 647(e) unconstitutional and which enjoined its enforcement. We noted probable jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2). 455 U.S. 999, 102 S.Ct. 1629, 71 L.Ed.2d 865 (1982).

II

In the courts below, Lawson mounted an attack on the facial validity of § 647(e).3 "In evaluating a facial challenge to a state law, a federal court must, of course, consider any limiting construction that a state court or enforcement agency has proffered." Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. 489, 494, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). As construed by the California Court of Appeal,4 § 647(e) requires that an in-

Page 356

dividual provide "credible and reliable" identification when requested by a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to justify a Terry detention.5 People v. Solomon, 33 Cal.App.3d 429, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867

Page 357

(1973). "Credible and reliable" identification is defined by the state Court of Appeal as identification "carrying reasonable assurance that the identification is authentic and providing means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." Id., at 438, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867. In addition, a suspect may be required to "account for his presence . . . to the extent that it assists in producing credible and reliable identification . . . ." Ibid. Under the terms of the statute, failure of the individual to provide "credible and reliable" identification permits the arrest.6

III

Our Constitution is designed to maximize individual freedoms within a framework of ordered liberty. Statutory limitations on those freedoms are examined for substantive authority and content as well as for definiteness or certainty of expression. See generally M. Bassiouni, Substantive Criminal Law 53 (1978).

As generally stated, the void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982); Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566, 94 S.Ct. 1242, 39 L.Ed.2d 605 (1974); Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 2294, 33 L.Ed.2d 222 (1972); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972); Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 46 S.Ct. 126, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Although the doctrine focuses

Page 358

both on actual notice to citizens and arbitrary enforcement, we have recognized recently that the more important aspect of vagueness doctrine "is not actual notice, but the other principal element of the doctrine—the requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement." Smith, supra, 415 U.S. at 574, 94 S.Ct., at 1247-1248. Where the legislature fails to provide such minimal guidelines, a criminal statute may permit "a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections." Id., at 575, 94 S.Ct., at 1248.7

Section 647(e), as presently drafted and construed by the state courts, contains no standard for determining what a suspect has to do in order to satisfy the requirement to provide a "credible and reliable" identification. As such, the statute vests virtually complete discretion in the hands of the police to determine whether the suspect has satisfied the statute and must be permitted to go on his way in the absence of probable cause to arrest. An individual, whom police may think is suspicious but do not have probable cause to believe has committed a crime, is entitled to continue to walk the public streets "only at the whim of any police officer" who happens to stop that individual under § 647(e). Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 90, 86 S.Ct. 211, 213, 15 L.Ed.2d 176 (1965). Our concern here is based upon the "potential for arbitrarily suppressing First Amendment liberties . . . ." Id., at 91, 86 S.Ct., at 213. In addition, § 647(e) implicates consideration of the constitutional right to freedom of movement. See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 126, 78 S.Ct. 1113, 1118, 2 L.Ed.2d 1204 (1958); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500, 505-506, 84 S.Ct. 1659, 1663-1664, 12 L.Ed.2d 992 (1964).8

Page 359

Section 647(e) is not simply a "stop-and-identify" statute. Rather, the statute requires that the individual provide a "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity, and that provides "means for later getting in touch with the person who has identified himself." Solomon, supra, 33 Cal.App.3d 438, 108 Cal.Rptr. 867. In addition, the suspect may also have to account for his presence "to the extent it assists in producing

Page 360

credible and reliable identification." Ibid.

At oral argument, the appellants confirmed that a suspect violates § 647(e) unless "the officer [is] satisfied that the identification is reliable." Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. In giving examples of how suspects would satisfy the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3013 practice notes
  • McLaughlin v. City of Lowell, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-10270-DPW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • October 23, 2015
    ...(1997). See, e.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (vagrancy); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (loitering). Because I hold that the Ordinance in its several challenged dimensions violates the Fir......
  • Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, No. 4:03CV3155.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • May 12, 2005
    ...fails to establish standards that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of constitutional rights. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 As applied to the undisputed facts of this case, the court finds that Section 29, as written and as app......
  • Lebar v. Thompson, CIVIL NO. 3:CV-08-0072
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • May 13, 2013
    ...Skilling v. United States, ____ U.S. ____, ____-____, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2927-28, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010)(quotingPage 19Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983))(alterations by quoting court)("To satisfy due process, 'a penal statute [must] define the crimina......
  • U.S. v. Bowker, No. 02-4086.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 11, 2004
    ...to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests." Morales, 527 U.S. at 52, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)). Vagueness may invalidate a criminal statute if it either (1)fails "to provide the kind of notice t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3001 cases
  • McLaughlin v. City of Lowell, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-10270-DPW
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts
    • October 23, 2015
    ...(1997). See, e.g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156, 92 S.Ct. 839, 31 L.Ed.2d 110 (1972) (vagrancy); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983) (loitering). Because I hold that the Ordinance in its several challenged dimensions violates the Fir......
  • Citizens for Equal Protection, Inc. v. Bruning, No. 4:03CV3155.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Nebraska
    • May 12, 2005
    ...fails to establish standards that are sufficient to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of constitutional rights. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 As applied to the undisputed facts of this case, the court finds that Section 29, as written and as app......
  • Lebar v. Thompson, CIVIL NO. 3:CV-08-0072
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • May 13, 2013
    ...Skilling v. United States, ____ U.S. ____, ____-____, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 2927-28, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010)(quotingPage 19Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983))(alterations by quoting court)("To satisfy due process, 'a penal statute [must] define the crimina......
  • U.S. v. Bowker, No. 02-4086.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • June 11, 2004
    ...to guard against the arbitrary deprivation of liberty interests." Morales, 527 U.S. at 52, 119 S.Ct. 1849 (citing Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 358, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)). Vagueness may invalidate a criminal statute if it either (1)fails "to provide the kind of notice t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • MONEY LAUNDERING
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...statutes’ knowledge requirements); United States v. Herndon, 122 F. Supp. 3d 487, 490–91 (S.D. W. Va. 2015). 140. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983); see also Awan, 966 F.2d at 1424–25; United States v. Gilliam, 975 F.2d 1050, 1056 (4th Cir. 1992). 141. See infra Section III.A. (d......
  • General Principles of Criminal Liability
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part Two
    • June 20, 2014
    ...in criminal ines and recoveries. 70 64. Id. at 565. 65. Id. at 563-64. 66. Id . at 564. 67. Id. at 563; see also Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (1983); Jordon v. DeGeorge, 341 U.S. 223, 230 (1951), rehearing denied , Jordan v. De George, 341 U.S. 956 (1951). 68. 42 U.S.C. §7413(c)(4)......
  • THE OBSOLESCENCE OF BLUE LAWS IN THE 21ST CENTURY.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law & Policy Review Vol. 33 Nbr. 2, June 2022
    • June 22, 2022
    ...Blue Law was not unconstitutionally vague or violative of the Fourteenth Amendment despite its exceptions). (73.) Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 (74.) See Sommer, supra note 4, at 1106-07, 1111-12 ("For example, it is difficult to imagine how the state's goal of providing a day of re......
  • Recent Legal Developments
    • United States
    • Criminal Justice Review Nbr. 39-2, June 2014
    • June 1, 2014
    ...J. (2005). Substance dependence, abuse, and treatment of jail inmates, 2002.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983).Kosilek v. Spencer, 889 F. Supp. 2d 190 (D. Mass. 2012).Lemire v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 726 F.3d ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT